The Bards' Bistro - Page 5 - Writers Forum

Baron · 12-13-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cran

Actually, no ... they are judged against benchmarks (times, faults, heights, etc) - the same is true of many such events (diving, dancing, gymnastics, etc). While entrants compete against each other, they are judged individually - ie, if there were only one entrant, that entrant would still be judged against the benchmarks.

The benchmarks are laid down in the judging criteria, in exactly the same way as is being attempted in the judging guidelines for the challenge. Competitors are judged only against other comepetitors according to the strictures of the guidelines.

If it came to comparing poems on the forum against classical poetry then you're venturing into an impossible area. It would require that judges are conversant with the classics, it would require agreement on what poetry is considered to be included among the classics and it would therefore mean that a panel of real experts in poetry would be required.

This is trying to elevate this challenge far beyond what it is and I don't believe could truly be implemented so why not just keep our feet on the ground and focus on a system that is judging submissions only against other submissions.

Cran · 12-13-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

No one should be forced to spend their time and effort looking for every single device. As long as the information is there for the participants to reference, then I think the main goal of learning and improvement (and fun) through these competitions has been achieved.

Absolutely ...

Quote:

In reference to my comments on your system, Cran, I was simply noting the responses of those in favor of immediate adoption of the system on the basis of "I like it." I had no intention of disparaging or otherwise making negative remarks about the system itself, which I think does a good job on the subjective side, and leaves room open for objective measurement.

Not offended in the least, Ilasir ...
there are so many complementary aspects to consider;
not all of which fit neatly into a "one-size-fits-all" box -
objective/subjective
generalities/specifics
proficiency/intuition
etc ...

As for the responses (thanks guys) - I think that comes back to
what you had indicated before:
finding a way of making the existing criteria appear less daunting,
and at the same time, showing where the missing pieces
could or should fit into the framework ...
that, coupled with Pete_C's idea of removing, or at least counterbalancing,
any prejudicial (opinionated) comments, sounds like real progress to me ...

Cran · 12-13-2007, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

The benchmarks are laid down in the judging criteria, in exactly the same way as is being attempted in the judging guidelines for the challenge. Competitors are judged only against other comepetitors according to the strictures of the guidelines.

No, they are not - and judges have been disgraced and barred for basing their scores in that manner - entrants are only ever judged against the benchmarks, never against their competitors - the whole concept of competing against each other is a furphy, and not relevant.

Quote:

If it came to comparing poems on the forum against classical poetry then you're venturing into an impossible area. It would require that judges are conversant with the classics, it would require agreement on what poetry is considered to be included among the classics and it would therefore mean that a panel of real experts in poetry would be required.

I agree with you ... but that is the concern expressed about the current criteria, and also my concern when I read it ...

Quote:

This is trying to elevate this challenge far beyond what it is and I don't believe could truly be implemented so why not just keep our feet on the ground and focus on a system that is judging submissions only against other submissions.

Because I think that is overly complicating the process; because I believe it is wrong; and because it is fairer to judge entries on their own merit, not how they stack up against the other entries ...

Baron · 12-13-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cran

No, they are not - and judges have been disgraced and barred for basing their scores in that manner - entrants are only ever judged against the benchmarks, never against their competitors - the whole concept of competing against each other is a furphy, and not relevant.

I agree with you ... but that is the concern expressed about the current criteria, and also my concern when I read it ...

Because I think that is overly complicating the process; because I believe it is wrong; and because it is fairer to judge entries on their own merit, not how they stack up against the other entries ...

Seems like there's some head banging going on here. I think that we are agreed that all entries should be judged againstan agreed criteria, and the point that I tried to make earlier is that events are judged focused on entries in that event, against set criteria, and not considereing performance outside of the event. Entries judged against predetermined criteria is about as simple as I can put it.

To use the showjumping metaphor, there is a diffferent expectancy in the local gymkhana to that of an international event, although the same guidelines apply they are tailored to the standard of the event. The local rider would be awarded points without any consideration to how they would compare to an international events rider. The judgment would be made in terms of how the judge felt that the entrant measured up against the set guidelines at the actual event.

Already I feel that discussion is getting overly complicated. Surely the idea is to set a guideline that can be easily applied by judges whose knowledge is at varying levels. With only minor complaints this seems to have worked with the system used in this last challenge. Surely the easiest way forward is to address and correct the shortfalls in that system?

Cran · 12-13-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

Seems like there's some head banging going on here. I think that we are agreed that all entries should be judged againstan agreed criteria, and the point that I tried to make earlier is that events are judged focused on entries in that event, against set criteria, and not considereing performance outside of the event. Entries judged against predetermined criteria is about as simple as I can put it.

Ah, yes, now I see what page you're on ...

Quote:

To use the showjumping metaphor, there is a diffferent expectancy in the local gymkhana to that of an international event, although the same guidelines apply they are tailored to the standard of the event. The local rider would be awarded points without any consideration to how they would compare to an international events rider. The judgment would be made in terms of how the judge felt that the entrant measured up against the set guidelines at the atual event.

Absolutely ...

Quote:

Already I feel that discussion is getting overly complicated. Surely the idea is to set a guideline that can be easily applied by judges whose knowledge is at varying levels. With only minor complaints this seems to have worked with the system used in this last challenge. Surely the easiest way forward is to address and correct the shortfalls in that system?

well, you know how it is, Baron - discussions involving more than one person tend to get complicated ...
you're right - maybe not easiest, but likely the best - even though we've all come in from different directions, we seem to have reached the same point.

I guess two things need to happen:
1. Ask the administrator(s) to consider such modifications as indicated by
2. interested volunteers with sufficient expertise to identify what's needed

as that cuts me out, I can now go back to being a fascinated observer ...

I think Ilasir might have tipped a hand, though ...

Ilasir Maroa · 12-13-2007, 11:50 PM

I tend to agree with Baron that the poems should be judged in comparison to, though not against, the other poems in the specific contest.

I tend to agree with Cran that the current system involves some comparison to classic poetry, and the more common conventions of that poetry. I don;t think (and correct me if i am wrong), that Cran is proposing we judge the poems against all poetry. But I also see Cran as against a direct competition between entries.

When I judged ths challenge, and the one run by Baron, I didn't look to other poems when judging a specific piece. This may account for some of the disparities mentioned in reference to final scores.

I think the main issue here is to decide what criteria can be fairly applied across the board. I think that the broader the category, the easier it will be to encompass all skill levels in one format. really, there are two ways to do this. Use the three most basic categories: Impact(emotional--or other, if stipulated--effect), Flow(rhythm; in meter or free verse), and Polish(care taken to keep poems using proper grammar, punctuation, etc). Poetic devices fall under all three of these categories. So do rhythm and imagery. But that can get complicated.

I think a simple way to do it is to look at imagery(metaphor, simile, analogy), technique(anything from rhythm to assonance, to rhyme and poetic devices), and overall impact. If we simply modify the current system so that each of these areas has a proportional number of categories, then it should fit most if not all of the criteria that can be reasonably set forth.

I just saw Cran's post*winces*

Yeah, uh... I have twenty-nine novels to write. See you all later!

(No seriously, I really am working on that many.)

And I also think now might be the time to admit I'm a thriteen-year-old boy with an addiction to Wikipedia...

Baron · 12-14-2007, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

I'm a thriteen-year-old boy with an addiction to Wikipedia...

Oh no! Not Hodge's little brother?

Ilasir Maroa · 12-14-2007, 01:08 AM

Oh, darn! You caught me baron...

d.b.potts · 12-14-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

I think the main issue here is to decide what criteria can be fairly applied across the board. I think that the broader the category, the easier it will be to encompass all skill levels in one format. really, there are two ways to do this. Use the three most basic categories: Impact(emotional--or other, if stipulated--effect), Flow(rhythm; in meter or free verse), and Polish(care taken to keep poems using proper grammar, punctuation, etc). Poetic devices fall under all three of these categories. So do rhythm and imagery. But that can get complicated.

I do believe Ilasir has hit it right on the head.
The competing poems do need to be judged based on certain criteria, but they should be universal so that every style can be scored accordingly.
The poems have to be pitted against each other, not the rules or the theme. If it's a technical challenge, then we should all be writing in the same style ("theatre" in iambic pentameter, or "sick love" in a sonnet). Otherwise, the scoring has to be able to accomodate a short free-verse poem equally alongside a long metered one.

Shawn · 12-14-2007, 05:11 PM

A free verse poem can be constructed with iambs, and it's good to do so. Part of making a memorable poem is making it memorable, and no one really remembers a phrase that's rough on the tongue. It's been said that one must know the rules in order to break them. I think this rings true in a poetic sense, because there are a lot of rules in poetry. It's hard to break into, and at times hard to understand; but I think that the main goal here should be education, and not continued ignorance of the craft.

In short, how do we judge a theme?

I would suggest something in the order of this:

Thematic Resonance - 5 Points
Technical Excellence - 5 Points
Composition - 5 Points
Message - 5 Points
Originality - 5 Points

Total - 25 Points

This is the deal and the balance. There are three categories that deal with non-technical aspects: thematic resonance, or how clearly the theme comes through; message, or the actual theme; and originality, or how uniquely the message is shown. Those three are worth 15 points, or 60% of the total score. Then there are two technical categories: Technical excellence, or grammar (as far as that may go) and spelling; and composition, or the use of poetic device in the poem.

Nothing on meter. Nothing on form. Just the use of rhetoric and the displaying of a theme. This would also allow the variability for there to be point gaps, so there aren't ties every other poem.

If you have a major theme to present, you use proper spelling, and you use devices (whether it be antithesis, asydentons, syncopation, etc.), then a high score should be easy.

On the other hand, if the theme is weak and the poem is weak, a low score will be shown.

Answering to five categories instead of ten would take half of the burden off the judges, and the scoring would need to be more carefully thought out by the judges, instead of arbitrary percentage points.

I don't know... just a suggestion.

Baron · 12-14-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

A free verse poem can be constructed with iambs, and it's good to do so. Part of making a memorable poem is making it memorable, and no one really remembers a phrase that's rough on the tongue. It's been said that one must know the rules in order to break them. I think this rings true in a poetic sense, because there are a lot of rules in poetry. It's hard to break into, and at times hard to understand; but I think that the main goal here should be education, and not continued ignorance of the craft.

In short, how do we judge a theme?

I would suggest something in the order of this:

Thematic Resonance - 5 Points
Technical Excellence - 5 Points
Composition - 5 Points
Message - 5 Points
Originality - 5 Points

Total - 25 Points

This is the deal and the balance. There are three categories that deal with non-technical aspects: thematic resonance, or how clearly the theme comes through; message, or the actual theme; and originality, or how uniquely the message is shown. Those three are worth 15 points, or 60% of the total score. Then there are two technical categories: Technical excellence, or grammar (as far as that may go) and spelling; and composition, or the use of poetic device in the poem.

Nothing on meter. Nothing on form. Just the use of rhetoric and the displaying of a theme. This would also allow the variability for there to be point gaps, so there aren't ties every other poem.

If you have a major theme to present, you use proper spelling, and you use devices (whether it be antithesis, asydentons, syncopation, etc.), then a high score should be easy.

On the other hand, if the theme is weak and the poem is weak, a low score will be shown.

Answering to five categories instead of ten would take half of the burden off the judges, and the scoring would need to be more carefully thought out by the judges, instead of arbitrary percentage points.

I don't know... just a suggestion.

The suggestion looks good to me. I think that, bearing in mind that judges in this challenge are volunteers, it's important to keep the criteria as simple as possible while at the same time covering the bases so that poems are given a reasoned judgment.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-14-2007, 07:56 PM

I think that Shawn's format would work best. It keeps the spirit of Cran's system, and it also places the emphasis well for each aspect of the poem. it allows for the much-desired subjectivity, and also gives the poor judges a bit of a break. In this form, the scoring system gives them more latitude in decining how much they wish to expand on the score.

Cran · 12-15-2007, 02:42 PM

I'm curious how one would assess originality for 20% of the score -
given the dichotomy of originality ...

on one side, every piece posted here must be original
(ie, the poster's own work), therefore simply posting would entitle 20% ...

on another side, can anything truly be described as original?
Would a judge know if something was truly original,
or simply outside of that judge's experience?
In which case, few if any would be entitled to a score, risking 20% ...

I'd also like something clearer about message
than the actual theme for 20% ...
especially as there are sections for thematic resonance,
technical excellence (which I would have equated with poetic craft),
and composition (which I would have equated with English skills) ...

Foxee · 12-15-2007, 02:45 PM

Wouldn't 'originality'='not cliched'?

Shawn · 12-15-2007, 03:10 PM

The judging would be on a gradient rubric. I threw together one really quickly to get the point across. This is standard in academic settings. Keep in mind that this is five minutes work.

Rubric

This sets "benchmarks" to ensure effective judging and fairness all around. It's much easier to contest scores when you know exactly how it is judged.

I use this technique when evaluating essays and the like. It keeps my opinion out of the scoring, so that the writer gets the credit they deserve.